“The Haredim are responsible for the program of incitement the Prime Minister is running against the President [Barack Obama],” the Rebbe told his followers at the anniversary of the passing of the Dvrei Yoel of Satmar, in the village of Kiryas Joel, Monroe, Tuesday evening.

“It is extremely blasphemous that the whole world knows observant Jews are those who stand behind the Prime Minister and provoke the nations, in the program that he runs horribly against the exalted American president,” the Rebbe asserted. “While the prime minister came to speak against the US president’s in his speech in Congress, the Haredim in Israel worked to create a coalition with him. The Haredi parties bear the direct responsibility for provoking all the world leaders, and puts Klal Yisroel in grave danger.”

“American Jewish politicians who claim to represent the Haredim in the United States are going to lobby Senators and Congressmen to vote against the president. While all generations knew and demanded the good of the government, even when governments in those days were not so good for the Jews, even more so for a country like the US which is good for the Jews. How can you wage war against the president? ” he asked.

Funny he's got a problem with those political parties when they follow the same socialist path as he does. And downright offensive he's backing Iran by proxy, because his complaints are part of the reason why Iran's been able to get as far as they have: cowardice and victim-blaming.

And no doubt, the Satmar clan must've given their bloc-vote to Obama in the last 2 elections. Pure disgraces they are.

The 26th day of the month of Av marks the 36th yarhtzeit of the Satmar Rebbe, Reb Yoilish, who was also known by the moniker “The Anti-Zionist Admor.” Reb Yoel fought with strength and determination against the Zionist establishment and its partners, viewing it as a detriment to the coming of Moshiach and the root of all evil in this world.

His older brother, the Satmar Rebbe, Reb. Aharon from Kiryas Joel, also addressed the debate over the Iran deal. In a speech to his followers on Tuesday, the rebbe said that while he had not studied the deal, it is not incumbent upon religious Jews to have a say on how Congress would vote on the deal. “If the agreement gets rejects and we are forced to go to war, who if not us will be blamed for the military casualties?” he asked.

Of course, it's just like somebody of his kind not to study these deals with the devil; he probably didn't even get any copies. And it's just like him to fall back on victim-blaming. They're only doing their damndest to ensure danger will strike in the worst ways possible.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

A Croatian hostage reportedly slain in Egypt was kidnapped by an unidentified group that demanded a ransom from his employer before turning him over to the Islamic State group, Croatia's Foreign Minister said Thursday.

Speaking in the Croatian coastal town of Rijeka, Foreign Minister Vesna Pusic said the original captors requested money from the French geoscience company that employed 30-year-old Tomislav Salopek.

The company says it received a ransom demand eight days after Salopek was kidnapped on July 22, but it included no phone number and multiple emails to the address it came from went unreturned.

On Aug. 5, a video emerged showing Salopek as a hostage of the Islamic State branch in Egypt. At that point, his captors demanded not money but the release of unspecified Muslim women from Egyptian jails.

"The conclusion was that there is no specific request and that we were dealing with two different organizations," Pusic said, "one that kidnapped him and the other that identified itself as the Islamic State."

The IS radio station announced Thursday that its Egyptian affiliate had killed Salopek, the first word from the extremist group a day after a gruesome image of his beheading circulated online.

Christophe Barnini, the chief spokesman for Salopek's employer, CGG, said that "at no moment did we enter negotiations with the kidnappers about a ransom."

The emailed ransom demand was not signed. For three days CGG sent replies to the email, in accord with Egyptian and Croatian authorities, Barnini said. The emails asked for proof of life and included a telephone number for the kidnappers to contact CGG, but they were never answered.

Authorities still have not confirmed that Salopek was killed and are continuing the search for him and his captors. It would be the first slaying of a foreign captive in Egypt, with the release of a video of him alive and then a photo of the alleged beheading, since the emergence of an Islamic State affiliate there. The government has been struggling to project an image of stability and revive the economy following years of unrest.

Pusic said she has met with representatives of about 80 other Croatian citizens working in Egypt and the government is considering stronger security measures for them, including the protection of the Egyptian army.

Islamic State militants in the Middle East and North Africa have taken a number of civilians hostage in recent years. Many European hostages have been released, reportedly in exchange for ransom, while citizens of the United States and Britain, which refuse to pay ransoms, have been killed. IS has released a number of graphic videos showing the beheading of hostages.

IS radio station Al-Bayan said that "soldiers of the Caliphate" killed Salopek, "whose country is participating in the war against the Islamic State."

It said the killing came after a deadline passed for "the renegade Egyptian government" to meet his captors' demands to free jailed women.

This is just like some of the ransom demands made by Hamas over here. Whoever those kidnappers are, they're already very repellent people.

The number of Americans filing new applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, but the trend continued to point to a strengthening labor market.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 274,000 for the week ended Aug. 8, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims for the prior week were revised to show 1,000 fewer applications received than previously reported.

Though claims have risen for three straight weeks, they have remained below the 300,000 threshold, which is associated with a firming jobs markets, for 23 consecutive weeks.

Headlines & Global News-10 hours agoWe Hear: Layoffs at RazorfishAgencySpy-16 hours agoLast summer, the agency went through a similar but larger round of layoffs across its North American offices, with CEO Tom Adamski promising ...

Layoffs at three Hudson County hospitalsNJ.com-20 hours agoThe layoffs were effective about two weeks ago. The official said they amount to less than 2 percent of the company's total staff. The owners of ...

CNNMoney-Aug 5, 2015 - Rotech files notice of 90 layoffs in OrlandoOrlando Sentinel-15 hours agoThe layoffs are expected to be completed by October 9, according to the notice. Attempts to reach someone with Rotech for more details were ...

A&P to issue layoff notices at all storesSupermarket News-Aug 11, 2015A&P is expected to notify all of its employees of impending layoffsas it proceeds with plans to close or sell all of its stores under its Chapter 11 ...

Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that nationalized the right to marry for same-sex couples, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited another landmark case: Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

Forty-seven years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down all interracial marriage bans as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The famous case has since served as the cornerstone of the legal battle for marriage equality: Gay marriage proponents seized upon Loving’s due process and equal protection rationales to make their case at the court.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on the heels of the Union victory, provided the basis 150 years later for a landmark ruling for same-sex couples citing its Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Try as we might to separate our struggles, our history throws us together, as illustrated by Kennedy's citations of the 1967 decision inLoving v. Virginia ending state bans on interracial marriage.

This Essay considers the posited Loving analogy and the contentions (1) that different-race marriage and same-sex marriage prohibitions present similar, albeit not identical, instances of unconstitutional state limitations on an individual’s freedom to marry the person of his or her choice, and (2) that interracial marriage bans are conceptually distinguishable from laws forbidding same-sex marriages and therefore do not violate the Constitution. The Essay concludes that Loving is a useful and authoritative analogy supporting the claims of plaintiffs who contend, among other things, that states may not constitutionally deny same-sex couples the right to marry based solely on the traditional view that marriage is, and should only be, the legal union of one man and one woman.

As is usually the case in analogies proposed by the Gramscian left, the Supreme Court decisions in Loving v Virginia and Obergefell v Hodges are not analogous at all - in fact, they are entirely dissimilar and actually almost exactly opposite.Let's review the particulars.In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down a particular statute, a specific Virginia state law, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924." This law was passed as part of the progressive eugenics movement that swept the country in the post-Wilsonian twenties.A specific statute making it illegal for men and women of different races to marry was passed in Virginia, because there is nothing - not one whit - against inter-racial marriage in the Common Law of Great Britain and the United States. There is nothing in the Canon Law of the Holy Roman Catholic Church or in the Church of England to prevent inter-racial marriage. Therefore, in order to make inter-racial marriage illegal, a specific statute was passed by the Virginia legislature and signed by the Commonwealth's governor. The "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" was not the first law in America forbidding inter-racial marriage. In 1664, A law was promulgated in Maryland to prevent marriages between free persons and slaves, and laws against marriages between whites and blacks were first passed in Virginia and Maryland in 1691 and 1692, respectively. Initially, these laws were intended to avoid the complications of determining the free or slave status of the children born in a marriage of a free person and a slave; the racial prohibitions came later.The point I'm making here is that inter-racial marriage was always recognized as a possibility, that inter-racial marriage is perfectly proper and legal under the Common Law, and that specific statutes had to be passed by state legislatures in order to make inter-racial marriage illegal.And even those laws did not deny the validity of a marriage properly contracted or celebrated between a man and a woman of different racial backgrounds. Such marriages were not annulled by the laws; the couple were simply banished from the Colony.(Incidentally, in Louisiana, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics were forbidden, but inter-racial marriages were always recognized.)Therefore, in striking down the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924," and similar laws in any other state that had them, the Supreme Court did not create a new social institution, did not fundamentally alter the character of any social institution, and returned the states to conformity with the Common Law of England and the United States. The decision the Court reached in Obergefell is quite different.The Common Law of England and the United States, the laws of every one of the States, and the traditional Canon Law of every Christian church have always recognized that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There are restrictions concerning the possible pairings and partners who may marry: a person can't marry one's parent, one's sibling, or one's child, for example.There has never been a restriction in the Common Law prohibiting a homosexually oriented person from marrying - so long as he or she married a partner with whom marriage was possible.But to the Common Law, the idea of a marriage between partners of the same sex was an absurd impossibility.Perhaps the most important reason for that, is that to be recognized by the Common Law and the Canon Law of the Church, a marriage has to be consummated. Non-consummation is grounds for the annulment of a marriage, after all.What does it mean to consummate a marriage? It means that the "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring."Therefore, it is impossible for a same-sex relationship to be consummated.Recognizing that impossibility, by the way, when the British Parliament changed the marriage laws of the United Kingdom to accommodate same-sex partnerships, they changed the grounds for annulment; non-consummation is grounds for annulment of a marriage between a man and a woman, but not for the annulment, in Britain, of a same-sex marriage. In addition, adultery in England consists only in heterosexual sexual intercourse with a partner other than one's spouse.Therefore, in order to create a new social institution, namely same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court did not overturn a specific state statute that banned same-sex marriages permitted under the Common Law from time immemorial. The Court created a new social institution ex nihilo. The Court essentially decided that 1,000 years of English and American Common Law, and 2,000 years of Christian Canon Law, could be ignored, and that the meaning of the words "marriage," "consummation," and so forth could be discarded. If the Obergefell decision is followed up by further Gramscian challenges to the fundamental social institutions of civil society - as it surely will be - then marriage will have ceased to exist in the United States altogether. There will no longer be a social institution, called "marriage," that means anything more than anyone wants it mean at any given point in time. Loving and Obergefell are not examples of the same principles of jurisprudence, but are almost exactly opposite. In Loving, the Court overturned a specific statute that was at variance with the Common Law (and I might add, Natural Law), and showed from where in the Constitution its authority to do so derived. In Obergefell, the Court revolted against the Common Law (and Natural Law) in order to create an entirely novel social institution that was entirely undreamed-of in the Constitution.

A group of Muslim men harassed a delegation of US Congressmen visiting the Temple Mount on Tuesday.

“There was an effort to completely suppress not only any expression of religious conviction, but any articulation of historical reality,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona), co-chairman of the Israel Allies Foundation’s Congressional caucus recounted.

The congressman said the harassment “shows the fundamental dynamics of the greater contention throughout the Middle East.”

Franks, Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pennsylvania), Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-West Virginia) and his wife, Elizabeth Jenkins, are visiting Israel as part of a delegation organized by the Israel Allies Foundation, an umbrella group supporting 33 parliamentary caucuses around the world that mobilize political support for Israel based on Judeo-Christian values.

As part of the delegation’s trip to the Middle East, the group took a tour of the Temple Mount that was constantly interrupted by shouting, first by Arab men in the plaza and then by staff from the Wakf Islamic trust.

“We walked up there, and were almost immediately approached by several men who started shouting,” Rothfus said. “We were tracked the entire time we were there and found these individuals surprisingly intolerant and belligerent.”

The delegation said the harassment began when they ascended the Mount, and a man yelled at Elizabeth Jenkins – who was wearing a calf-length skirt and a long-sleeved shirt – that she needed to cover up more. Police were needed to break up the melee and clear the way for the group to continue its visit.

The group’s tour guide then began to speak about the history of the site, which is holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims, but is controlled by Jordan and the Jerusalem Islamic Wakf.

Oh, what balderdash. If it weren't so holy to Jews, it wouldn't be so much to Muslims.

When the guide showed the group a map of Israel, a man who was cleaning nearby notified another man in the area, who approached the guide while he was talking. The man asked the guide questions about the maps and diagrams, demanding to be shown if any of them feature the Temple, and told him he cannot use the term “Temple Mount,” only “Dome of the Rock,” as can be seen in a video the group provided to The Jerusalem Post.

Men wearing shirts with Wakf insignia then repeatedly interrupted the guide and tried to grab his diagrams and maps. The guide responded that he is doing nothing illegal and will only stop if told to do so by police.

“Our guide was very respectful but very appropriately strong in his convictions,” said Evan Jenkins. “He was not confrontational, but handled it very appropriately.”

Soon after, 15-20 men began to harass the group, interrupting the tour guide, shouting and pointing, and once again police were needed to break up the commotion.

The guide “let us know that men running around with walkie-talkies are not the final authority,” Jenkins recounted. “Despite the screaming and shouting and pointing of men with walkie-talkies, the police were able to exercise their authority and let us proceed comfortably.”

For the rest of their visit to the Temple Mount, the group was followed around by a group of Muslim men.

E.J. Kimball, director of US operations for the Israel Allies Foundation, said the congressional delegation “wasn’t doing anything controversial, no one was even wearing a yarmulke. [The Muslims on the Mount] did a good job of making everyone feel very uncomfortable just for being up there as a non-Muslim.”

On their way out, the delegation saw a group of Jewish visitors being confronted by a Muslim group, who was crowding around them and shouting “allahu akbar.”

The Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel is known to pay thousands of shekels every month to Murbitat – meaning protectors of holy places – who harass non-Muslim visitors. The groups of Murbitat are often led by women dressed head-to-toe in black, with their faces covered.

Jenkins said he had mixed emotions after the turbulent visit.

“It was a place of great religious meaning to me as a Christian, a destination... that me and my wife were looking forward to,” Jenkins said. “And then to have the confrontation from the Muslims who yelled and shouted at us and my wife individually... To literally step on the Temple Mount and be confronted was certainly shocking.”

[...] Franks said while he doesn’t question Israeli policies on the Temple Mount, he found that “in general, when there is a lack of resolve in protecting religious freedoms, it emboldens those who have no compunction about suppressing it.” Rothfus said he “certainly” felt his freedom of expression was violated.

“We weren’t doing anything religious,” he said. “We were learning the history of the Temple Mount.”

Rothfus plans to share his experience, and said of the harassers: “Maybe the folks who were behaving like this might want to do some self-examination. They really are not presenting themselves as very good ambassadors for their cause.”

Of course not. Nor do they want to, because they're confident they have other anti-Israelists on their side. I hope Rothfus realizes that the police let down local visitors too, and cannot be overlooked.

One of the Congress members, co-chairman of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus Trent Franks, addressed the Iran issue, saying, "Just as the Nazis disappeared after trying to destroy the Jewish people, so will the jihadists threatening Israel."

Controversy is growing in France following the Paris town council’s decision for Tel Aviv be one of the cities honored in the Paris-Beaches summer event organized every year by the municipality.

[...] But across social media, and even among local politicians, the decision has caused an outcry. Danielle Simonnet, a left-wing lawmaker, called for the day devoted to Tel Aviv to be canceled.

In an interview on French Inter radio on Monday, Simonnet instead called for turning the day into “a peace protest, in support of fraternity, in support of the fight against all forms of racism and anti-Semitism, and to back recognition of the Palestinian state.”

“Just one year after the massacres over the Gaza Strip by the Israeli state and army, the City of Paris dares to organize in the frame of its cultural partnerships with the big cities of the world a day honoring Tel Aviv,” she wrote in a letter of protest.

Simonnet, who for the last seven years has represented the French capital’s 20th district – which has a large Arab population – said the day-long festival “sends a very bad message.”

She also said, “For the Israeli government, this is a nice bit of PR that Paris is serving up on a plate.”

The National Bureau for Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism, or BNVCA, on Sunday condemned Simonnet for her calls to cancel the event and said the city’s mayor should not yield to her pressure.

The pro-Palestinian group CAPJPO- Europalestine has called for protests of the event if it is not canceled.

BNVCA, an anti-Semitism watchdog, said it has asked the Paris police commissioner to bolster security during the festival day devoted to Tel Aviv out of fear of anti-Semitic attacks.

Thanks to that Simmonet, the danger is even more probable that there'll be trouble coming. It's clear she's among the people who actually want there to be a disaster in the making.

Interestingly, a deputy mayor defended the plans, but did it from a dhimmi's viewpoint:

Bruno Julliard the first deputy mayor of Paris, said on Sunday: “We refuse any parallels between the brutal colonization policy of Israel and the city of Tel Aviv, which is a progressive city and a symbol of tolerance.

“We will not let an entire population be punished for its government’s colonialist policy,” he added.

So that's why he's defending this? Ridiculous. His inference that Israel's government is "colonialist" is hostile too. Fortunately, he's been rebutted:

French lawmaker Eric Ciotti, who represents the Alpes-Maritimes region in southeastern France for the Les Républicains party, said regarding the reaction to the beach event, “Let me be very clear about this—the overtones are obviously anti-Semitic,” Europe 1 radio reported.

Ciotti also criticized Bruno Julliard, a top official in the Paris mayor’s office, who in an attempt to defend the event said that people should distinguish between “the brutal politics of the Israeli government and Tel Aviv, a progressive city.”

“These attacks on Israel are unjust and undignified. Israel is a democracy, we should be supporting them,” Ciotti said, France 24 reported.

The Obama administration asked a United States judge on Monday (Aug. 10) to “carefully consider” the size of the bond he sets for the Palestinian Authority while it appeals an award for damages in the deaths and injuries of Americans in six terror attacks in Israel.

Both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority were determined to be financial liable for the attacks in the civil trial that ended in a New York court in February.

Under U.S. anti-terrorism law, the jury’s award of $218.5 million was automatically tripled to a total of $655.5 million.

Attorneys for the defense argued the PA could not afford to post the bond for the appeal, typically 111 percent of the judgement. They asked the judge to waive the bond requirement altogether instead.

The Obama administration concurred, and took the highly unusual step late Monday night of filing a formal “Statement of Interest of the United States of America” with Justice George B. Daniels of the Federal District Court in Manhattan.

The plaintiffs, who were opposed to the request, included ten families of victims of terror, comprising some three dozen members, eight of whom were physically injured in the attacks and others who were related to those who were murdered in the attacks that took place between 2002 to 2004.

The attacks left a total of 33 dead and more than 450 injured, including a number of U.S. citizens. They were carried out by terrorists from the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades and Hamas.

This is a disgrace, and only emboldens the PLO to think they can get away with their crimes, past and present. The judge would do well to decline the request, but sadly, they'll probably succumb to PC.

Both are charged with attempting and conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist group. A hearing on their detention began Monday in U.S. District Court in Oxford according to WTVA-TV, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Chad Lamar said it will continue Tuesday. Lamar refused to comment on the case, saying federal officials would release a statement Tuesday.

An affidavit by an FBI agent says both confessed their plans to after their arrest Saturday. It was unclear late Monday which lawyers represent the two.

The court papers say both Young and Dakhlalla are U.S. citizens. Mississippi State University spokesman Sid Salter said records show Dakhlalla graduated in May with a bachelor's degree in psychology. Salter said Young was enrolled until May as a sophomore chemistry major but had not enrolled for classes since. Young, originally from Vicksburg, Mississippi, was a 2013 honors graduate from Warren Central High School, The Vicksburg Post reported.

Dakhlalla's relatives are "absolutely stunned" by the arrest and have been cooperating with the FBI, said Dennis Harmon, an attorney representing the family.

Dakhlalla is the youngest of three sons and was preparing to start grad school at Mississippi State University, Harmon said. The attorney also said the man's father, Oda H. Dakhlalla, is imam of the Islamic Center of Mississippi in Starkville.

I don't know about the girl's family, but the man's family is more obvious in their background, and we shouldn't trust their "stunned" response for a second. They raised their son on Islam, so what did they expect?

The FBI searched the family's home, including Dakhlalla's room over the weekend, Harmon said.

The charges indicate that undercover FBI agents interacted online with Young beginning in May about her desire to travel to Syria to join the group. The charge states that her Twitter page said the only thing keeping her from traveling to Syria was her need to earn money. "I just want to be there," she is quoted as saying. In later conversations peppered with Arabic phrases, she said she planned a "nikkah," or Islamic marriage to Dakhlalla so they could travel without a chaperone under Islamic law.

Why does she want to be there? Why does she even hang around with such an awful man who's bound to betray her once they set foot in Syria? I hope one day she'll be thankful she didn't make it out of the country. The IS would've been nasty to her as well.

In June, the first FBI agent passed Young off to a second FBI agent posing as an Islamic State facilitator. The charge says Young asked the second agent for help crossing from Turkey to Syria, saying "We don't know Turkey at all very well (I haven't even travelled outside U.S. before.)"

Young specified her skills with math and chemistry and said she and Dakhlalla would like to be medics treating the injured. Later, the charge says, she told the second FBI agent Dakhlalla could help with the Islamic State's Internet media, saying he "really wants to correct the falsehoods heard here" and the "U.S. media is all lies when regarding" the group, which she called by its preferred internal name, Dawlah.

Dakhlalla told the first FBI agent in an online conversation in June that he was "good with computers, education and media" and that his father had approved him and Young to get married. In July, the charges say, he expressed a desire to become a fighter for the group. "I am willing to fight," he is quoted as saying.

Young later told the FBI that she and Dakhlalla had gotten married June 6 and they planned to claim they were traveling on their honeymoon as a cover story. She also expressed a desire to "raise little Dawlah cubs."

The FBI said Dakhlalla and Young both expressed impatience with how long it was taking for them to be issued passports and the charges say Dakhlalla paid $340 to expedite passport processing on July 1.

Though the charges say earlier messages indicate the couple planned to fly to Greece and then take a bus to Turkey, the couple later bought tickets on Delta Air Lines leaving Golden Triangle bound for Atlanta, Amsterdam and ultimately Istanbul. Young expressed confidence that security at the small airport would not detect them.

Salter said Mississippi State has cooperated with the investigation once the university was contacted Saturday, providing information on the former students.

I think there's every reason to suspect the father, but I'm sure they won't make an effort to investigate. It's terrible the woman would ruin herself over a fascination with violence and join up with a man raised more under the influence than she was.

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush will step up his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her tenure as secretary of state on Tuesday, arguing in a speech on foreign policy the Democratic front-runner shares in the mistakes that he says led to the rise of the Islamic State.

The former Florida governor will also call for a renewed sense of U.S. leadership in the Middle East, which he says is needed to defeat the militant group and an ideology that "is, to borrow a phrase, the focus of evil in the modern world."

"The threat of global jihad, and of the Islamic State in particular, requires all the strength, unity and confidence that only American leadership can provide," Bush will say, according to excerpts of his remarks as prepared for delivery.

In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, Bush plans to tie the rise of the militant Sunni group to the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. IS occupies a large swath of Iraq and Syria, and has a presence elsewhere in the Mideast.

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat," Bush will say. "And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this?

Clinton, he says, "stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away. In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once.

American troops left Iraq in December 2011 as required under a 2008 security agreement worked out by former President George W. Bush. Both countries tried to negotiate plans to keep at least several thousand U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the deadline to help keep a lid on simmering tensions among Islamic sects.

The Iraqi government refused to let U.S. forces remain in their country with the legal immunity President Barack Obama's administration insisted was necessary to protect them. Obama, who campaigned for president on ending the war in Iraq, took the opportunity to remove U.S. forces from the country.

"It was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem," Bush will say. "Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous."

The irony is that the Iraqi government themselves aren't much better than IS, and if they adhere to Islam, that could partly explain why IS managed to gain footholds there.

Beyond this, however, I don't see much value in Bush, whose own brother led an otherwise irresponsible, dhimmified policy on Islam, and I wouldn't count on Jeb Bush being any better.

Monday, August 10, 2015

A new poll released on Monday shows that support for Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran continues to unravel. According to the poll from Monmouth University, only 41 percent of Democrats believe Congress should approve the president’s nuclear deal with the Iranian regime.

The numbers only get worse among independents and Republicans. Overall, just 27 percent of those polled believe Congress should approve the controversial nuclear deal with Iran.

AND SINCE, ACCORDING TO OBAMA AND KERRY, ONLY RETHUGLICANS AND JOOOOOOOZE - AND IRANIAN "HARDLINERS", (WHO SOMEHOW DON'T INCLUDE THE AYATOLLAH!) - ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEAL, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY MUST NOW BE MOSTLY JEWS AND RETHUGLICANS.

SERIOUSLY, A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY - IN CONGRESS AND IN THE ELECTORATE - OPPOSE THE DEAL.

And the AFP just wants to say there's a "strong suspicion" that jihadists were the culprits in this hostage crisis that just took place:

A deadly attack and hostage-taking at a Mali hotel is believed to be the work of an Islamist organisation with ties to an Al-Qaeda linked group, investigators said Monday.

Although no-one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, investigators found phone numbers and addresses on the bodies of the "terrorists" which suggested they belonged to an Islamist group.

The hostage crisis, which began early Friday, ended nearly 24 hours later when Malian troops stormed the Byblos Hotel in the central town of Sevare.

The Malian government said four soldiers, five UN workers and four "terrorists" were killed. Among the victims were two Ukrainians, a Nepalese and a South African, according to the UN mission in Mali.

Investigators said there were "strong suspicions" the hostage-takers were from the newly-formed Macina Liberation Front (FLM), an Islamist extremist group drawn from the Fulani people from the centre of the country.

"Investigators found telephone numbers and address on the bodies of the terrorists... which supports the FLM theory," a security source said, indicating that an identity card found on one of the bodies showed he was from a the Macina area.

Breitbart notes that the hotel is often used by UN staffers. Unfortunately, there's no chance the UN will ever learn that their kowtowing will not stop these barbarians from turning on even their employees.

This is regrettable, but according to this news brief on Paste, a new Lego computer game based on Marvel's products is using a figure based on the Muslim Ms. Marvel:

[...] New screenshots reveal the current Ms. Marvel, AKA Kamala Khan, will be in the game, along with the Unbeatable Squirrel Girl and the latest hero to wield Thor’s hammer, Jane Foster.

Sigh. I've said this a few times before, and will again. If it hadn't been for the religious background they've given the Khan character, this wouldn't matter much. But because that's the background they ascribed to their creation, that's why this does not look so appealing. It brings to mind an incident from 6 years ago where a mother discovered some toys she'd bought for her children, like a video game called "Baby Pals", had a hidden message inside saying "Islam is the light". Whether or not any Islamic propaganda finds its way into the Lego computer game proper, I don't think these parents would be happy if they found out Kamala Khan was depicted as an Islam adherent in the comics.

Interesting that this game also follows the PC narrative with Jane Foster taking the real Thor's place, instead of putting a full emphasis on a girl like Sif. That may not be as embarrassing as how the Muslim Ms. Marvel is developed, but it's still theater-of-the-absurd. If these new games and other merchandise are going to follow Marvel's PC panderings to the cause of diversity, then they're not really dedicated to escapist fun at all, just propaganda mishmash.

IMAGINE AN ELECTION—A close one. You’re undecided. So you type the name of one of the candidates into your search engine of choice. (Actually, let’s not be coy here. In most of the world, one search engine dominates; in Europe and North America, it’s Google.) And Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about that candidate. Great! Now you are an informed voter, right? But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote. And if the election is close enough, the effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.

In other words: Google’s ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency. “We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study’s authors, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”

PARTISAN HACKERS MIGHT EVEN BE TIPPING THE SCALES IN "POLLS" THAT SHOW TRUMP AS LEADING THE GOP POLLS....

I don't put anything past the partisans on the left; they use Alinsky tactics - which means no holds are barred....

No nation has more to gain from a democrat in the White House, and the billions that Iran has devoted to their nuke program over the last two decades will mean nothing if a conservative Republican wins.

China and Putin have a lot to gain too.... like even more "flexibility."

BOTTOM LINE:

NO DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS REPUDIATED OBAMA'S CAPITULATION TO IRAN;

THEREFORE, A VOTE FOR ANY DEMOCRAT NOMINEE IS A VOTE FOR THE AYATOLLAHS.